E435 











/ 









A^^ 



^^^ 



tf: 



-^o 



A 






S' 



^oV" 






^,;;^ 







.o<i 



s- 



^^•n^. 



.7i/^ 






rjy^\- 









._^'S- 









^ 



'*^0^ 



.',>^' 









' " THE PARTIES OF THE DAY 



SPEECH 



OF 



WILLIAM H.'SEWARD. 

f 

AT AUBURN, OCTOBER 21, 1856. 




WASHINGTON, D. C. 

PUBLISHED BY THE REPUBLICAN ASSOCIATION OP WASHINGTON. 
Buell & Blanchard, Printers, 

1857. 



SPEECH OF MR. SEWARD. 



Fellow-Citizk.n's : "We are neighbors and 
frieads. "W'e know each other well. I know- 
that you are sincere, and you know, as I trust, 
that I am not a man of ungrateful disposi- 
tion. AV'e have a common memory of many 
political storms through which we have pass- 
ed, not altogether without occasional aliena- 
tions and separations. You therefore can read- 
ily conceive, without the use of amplification 
on my part, how profoundly gratifying it is to 
me now to see not only a general brightening of 
the skies, auspicious of the triumph of the polit- 
ical principles which I have cherished through 
BO muny trials, but also troops and crowds and 
clouds of friends, more numerous, more earnest, 
and more confiding, than those Vjy whom I was 
surrounded in the most successful and happiest 
periods of my life. 

If politics were indeed, as many seem to sup- 
pose, merely an uncertain sea, bounded by rich 
ports and havens, tempting private adventure, T 
should not be one of those who, standing on 
the beach, would be inciting my fellow-titizeus 
to embark on board of this craft or of the 
other. If politics were, as others seem to think, 
merely a game cunningly compounded of courage, 
accident, and skill, in which prizes or crowns 
were to be won by the victors for their own 
glory and gratification, I certainly should not be 
found among the heralds of the contestants on 
either side. If, again, politics were only a forum 
in which social theories, without immediate 
bearing on the welfare and safety of the coun- 
try, were discussed, I might then be a listener, 
but I should not be a disputant. 

liut, although politics present these aspects 
to superficial observers^ they are nevertheless 
far more serious and practical. They are in re- 
ality the regulation and direction of the actual 
life of the American people. How much of in- 
dividual, domestic, and social happiness depends 
on the regulation and conduct of only one single 
human life 1 How much more of human hap- 
piness depends, then, on the regulation and con- 
duct of this whole nation's thousand-fold longer 
life! 



Since I have come before you on this occa- 
sion influenced by these sentiments, you will not 
expect from me either humorous, exaggerated, 
passionate, or prejudiced speech, but will calcu- 
late on an examination of the merits of candi- 
dates for public favor, and of the parties by whom 
those candidates are respectively sustained. 

It is not my habit to speak largely of candi- 
dates; I refrain for two reasons. First, because, 
being necessarily brought into personal combi- 
nation or conflict with public men, my judgment 
concerning them is liable to the biases of partial- 
ity and jealousy. Secondly, because it is not a 
habit of parties in our country to select unfit, 
unworthy, or unreliable men, to be their represent- 
atives. Whatever may be the personal merits or 
demerits of a candidate, he cannot act otherwise, 
if he be chosen, than as an agent of the majority 
to whom he owes his place. The real question, 
therefore, in every canvass, is, What are the merits 
of the party by whom a candidate is preferred ? 
And inquiries concerning the personal charaetert , 
dispositions, and conduct of candidates, are wast- 
ed on a false and delusive issue. You can try the 
truth of this position at once, by inquiring of 
whomsoever assails the character of the candi- 
date of your choice, whether he would give his 
support to that candidate, abandoning his own, 
if all his personal objections could at once bo 
removed. Your opponent, if a candid man, would 
probably answer in the negative. 

But the case is quite different with political 
parties or masses of citizens. A nation ac-ts at 
any one time through the consent and activit^, 
not of all its members, but of only a majority, 
who determine what shall be done, not only 
for themselves, but for all other citizens. By oui- 
individual suffrages, we express our choice, 
whether one class of citizens, with a specific poh- 
cy and peculiar principles, shall rule the country, 
directing it in a course of their own ; or whether 
a different class, with different policy and prin- 
ciples, shall conduct it in a contrary direction. 
I shall therefore discuss existing parties freely. 
You shall judge whether I perform this duty with 
moderation and candor. 



In the first place, I must ask you to notice the 
fact that American society is now in a transition 
state, so far as political parties are concerned. 
Two or three years ago, the American People 
were divided into two well-defined, distinct, and 
organized parties, the Whigs and the Democrats. 
To-day, instead of those two parties, we see 
three masses, uncertainly defined, and apparent- 
ly at least quite unorganized — namely, Ameri- 
cans, Democrats, and Republicans ; and we see 
portions of each of these easily detached, and 
passing over to the others, while a very consid- 
erable number of citizens stand hesitating 
whether to join one or the other, or to stand 
aloof still longer from all. 

Such a transition stage, although unusual, is 
not unnatural. Established parties are built on 
certain policies and principles, and they will re- 
main so long as those policies and principles are 
of paramount importance. They must break 
asunder and dissolve when new exigencies bring 
up new and difiFerent policies and principles, and 
the transition stage will last until the paramount 
importance of these new policies and principles 
shall be generally felt and confessed. 

In a healthy and vigorous Republic, the trans- 
ition stage I have described cannot last long, be- 
cause, in the absence of a firm and decided 
majority to direct its course, it would fall under 
the management of feeble and corrupt factions, 
under whose sway it would rapidly decline and 
speedily perish. Our Republic, God be thank- 
ed, is yet healthy and vigorous, and we already 
see that society is passing out of the transition 
stage, to the ancient and proper condition. This 
condition is one which tolerates two firm and 
enduring parties — no less, and no more. There 
must be two parties, because at every stage of 
national life some one question of national con- 
duct, paramount to all others, presents itself to 
be decided. Such a question always has two 
sides, a right side and a wrong side, but no third 
or middle side. The right side unites a party. 
The wrong side attracts a party. All masses 
which affect neutrality, as well as all masses 
which seek to stand independently on questions 
which have already passed and become obsolete, 
or which have not yet attained paramount im- 
portance, are crowded and crushed in the con- 
flicts between the two parties which occupy for 
the time being the whole field of contest. 

If such an emergency has now occurred, pre- 
senting a vital question, on which society must 
divide into two parties, and if those parties are 
actually found in the political arena, then we are 
now individually to decide whether to identify 
ourselves with a mass which will exist uselessly 
for a short period, or unite with one of two 
parties which will be enduring, and on whose 
conflict depends the welfare of tlie Republic ; 
and as between these parties, whether we shall 
attach ourselves to the party which will main- 
tain the wrong, and perish with it, or that which 
shall maintain the right, and immediately or 
ultimately triumph with it. 

You yourselves shall prove by your responses 
that tluit emergency has occurred, and that ques- 
tion id upon us. What has produced the disor- 



ganization and confusion which we have all seen 
and wondered at, involving the dissolution of the 
Whig party, and the disorganization of the Demo- 
cratic party, and given room and verge for the 
American or Know Nothing party ? Ywu all an- 
swer, the agitation of Slavery. And you answer 
truly. Answer again. What shall I discourse 
upon ? The contest of the American Colonies with 
Great Britain, and the characters of the Whigs 
and Tories? No; these are themes for the Fourth 
of July. The adoption of the Constitution, and 
the disputes between Federalists and Republi- 
cans ? No ; let them sleep. The Tariflf, National 
Bank, and Internal Improvements, and the con- 
troversies of the Whigs and Democarts ? No ; 
they are past and gone. What, then, of Kansas — 
the admission of Kansas as a free State or a slave 
State, the extension of Slavery in the territories 
of the United States ? Ah, yes ; that is the 
theme — the extension of Slavery, and nothing 
else. What are the Americans in ths North and 
in the South discussing in their secret coun- 
cils, so far as their debates are suifered to 
transpire? The abrogation and restoration of 
the Missouri Compromise, and nothiog else. The 
Democrats also, in the North and South — they 
talk of nothing else but saving the Union from 
destruction, by suppressing this discussion about 
the extension of Slavery. 

Is this question about the extension of ^avery 
new, unreal, and imaginary — the mere caprice of 
an hour? Is it a wind that " bloweth where it 
listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but 
cannot tell whence it cometh and whither it 
goeth ? " No ; it is an ancient and eternal conflict 
between two entirely antagonistic systems of hu- 
man labor combined with American society, and 
aot unequal in their forces ; a conflict for not 
merely toleration, but absolute political sway in 
the Republic ; between the system of free labor, 
with equal and universal suffrage, free speech, free 
thought, and free action, and the system of slave 
labor, with unequal franchises secured by arbi- 
trary, oppressive, and tyrannical laws. It is as 
old as the Republic itself, although it has never 
ripened before. It presented itself when the Con- 
stitution was adopted, and was then only tempo- 
rarily repressed by a compromise, which allowed 
to slaveholding communities three votes for every 
five slaves, while it provided at the same time for 
the aV)olition of the African slave trade. It pre- 
sented itself in the Constitutional Congress of 
1787, and was then put aside only by the pas- 
sage of the Ordinance of 1787, dedicating all 
the Northwest Territory to free labor. It oc- 
curred again in 1820, threatening to distract the 
Union, and was then again put to rest by an- 
other compromise, which relinquished Missouri 
to slave labor, and gave over the Territory which 
now constitutes Kansas and Nebraska to free 
labor. It occurred again in 1844, when Texas 
was annexed, and was put to sleep for only a 
short space by the division of Texas — very un- 
equally, indeed — into slave soil and free soil. It 
arose again during the war with Jlexieo, and 
was quieted by the memorable Compromise of 
1850, whose details I need not repeat. It occur- 
red again in 1854, on the opening of Kansa^and 



Nebraska Territories to civilization, and was put 
to sleep once more by the adoption in Congress 
of the specious delusion of popular soTereignty. 
The question, that is so old, that has presented 
itself so often, and never without disturbing, as it 
seemed, the very foundations of society, and that 
has deranged and disorganized all the political 
combinations of the country, fortified as they 
were by so many interests, ambitions, and tra- 
ditions, must be confessed to be a real and en- 
during, if not a vital, question. But a moment's 
examination will serve to satisfy you that it is 
also "a. vital question. It is really one in which 
the parties are a sectional, local class of slave- 
holders, standing on the unnatural principle 
of property in human beings on the one side, 
and the greater mass of society on the other, 
who, whether from choice or necessity, are 
not, cannot, and will not be, either slaves or 
the owners of slaves. A small minority, which 
cannot even maintain itself, except by means of 
continually-increasing concessions and new and 
more liberal guaranties, against a majority that 
could never have been induced to grant any guar- 
anties whatever except by threats of disunion, 
and that can expect no return for new and further 
concessions and guaranties, but increasing exac- 
tions and ultimate aggressions or secessions. 
The slaveholders can never be content without 
dominion, which abridges the freedom as well as 
circumscribes the domain of the non-slavehold- 
ing freemen. Non-slaveholding freemen can 
never permanently submit to such dominion. 
Nor can the competition or contention cease, for 
the reason that the general conscience of man- 
kind throws its weight on the side of Freedom, 
and presses the resistanls onward to oppose the 
schemes and aggressions of the slaveholding 
class. Heretofore, opposing political combina- 
tions, long established, and firmly intrenched in 
traditions and popular affections, have concurred 
in the policy of sujipressing this great and impor- 
tant question ; but they have succumbed under it 
at last. Henceforth, the antagonistical elements 
will l)e left to clash without hindrance. Hereto- 
fore, the broad field of the national Territories 
allowed each of the contending interests ample 
room, without coming into direct conflict with the 
other. Henceforth, the two interests will be 
found contending for common ground claimed by 
both, and which can be occupied by only one of 
them. 

One other condition remains to be settled — 
namely, that this great question is imminent and 
urgent; in other words, that it must be settled 
and determined, without further postponement 
or delay. How can it be further postponed ? 
If it could be postponed at all, it could be only by 
the same means which have been used for that 
purjiose heretofore — namely, corapromise. Where 
arc the agents necessary to make new compromi- 
ses ? The agents of the past compromises are gone. 
Although tliey sleep in honored graves, and the 
mourners over them have not yet quitted the 
streets, yet no new compromisers arise to occupy 
their places. A compromise involves mutual 
e((uivaleuts — something to give, and something to 
take in exchange. Will blavery give you any- 



thing? No ; it insists on a free range over all the 
Territories. What have you to give in e.xcliangc ? 
When you have given up Kansas, you will have 
relinquished all the Territories ; for the principle 
of the relinquishment is, that Slavery may con- 
stitutionally take them all. When compromise 
IS exhausted, what follows? Dispute, conten- 
tion, contest, conflict. 

Again, the question is imminent, and must be 
met now. Kansas, at the last session of Con- 
gress, voluntarily offered itself as a free State, 
and demanded to be admitted into the Union, 
and was rejected. Since that time, the Territory 
has been subjugated by slaveholders ; and they, 
having usurped its sovereignty, are organizing a 
slave State there, which will olfer itself for ad- 
mission into the Union at the next session of 
Congress. Utah, already organized as( a slave 
State, with iTeT Thcestuous soc ial system,' is lying 
concealed and waiting, ready to demand admis- 
sion so soon as Kansas shall have been received 
into the Union. The adoption of both, or even 
one of these States, will bear heavily, perhaps 
conclusively, on the fortunes of the entire conflict 
between Freedom and Slavery. 

Insomuch as the question, that is henceforth to 
divide society into two parties, is thus seen to be 
a vital and imminent one, let us fully possess 
ourselves of its magnitude. We have a sluggish, 
turbid, and desolating stream of slave labor, 
issuing from fifteen slave States. We have 
ever-increasing and commingled volumes of free 
labor, issuing from sixteen free States, swollen by 
a stream scarcely less full from European and 
Asiatic fountains. These two variant floods can- 
not be combined, but one necessarily repels and 
excludes the other. We have half a continent 
yet to be opened to the flow of the one or of the 
other. Shall we diffuse Slavery over the new 
region, to react upon and destroy ourselves, or 
shall we extend Freedom over it, and spread 
happiness throughout all its mountains and 
plains, and thus forever establish our own safety 
and welfare ? 

If this great question were disembarrassed of 
all personal and partisan interests and preju- 
dices, the universal voice of the American peo- 
ple would be pronounced for Freedom, and 
against Slavery. Freedom is nothing more than 
equality of political right or power among all 
the members of a State. It is natural, just, use- 
ful, and beneficent. All men instinctively choose 
the side on which these advantages lie. How 
true this is, you may infer from the fact that 
every one of the banners, borne to this field by 
one of the great contending masses, wears, as its 
inscription, a tribute to Freedom, while no ban- 
ner, borne by either of the other parties, is ever 
defiled with homages to Slavery. 

Nevertheless, while all avow themselves fa- 
vorable to Freedom, we have to choose, between 
the three existing masses, the one which will 
effectually secure its predominance in the Re- 
public. 

Shall we join ourselves to the Know Nothing 
or American organization? What are its creed 
and its policy ? Its creed is, that the political 
franchises of alien immigrants and Roman Cath- 



6 



olics in our country are too great, and its policy j crowded from a neutral position, and, with crum- 



is to abridge them 

Now I might, for argument sake, concede that 
this creed and this policy were just and wise ; 
still I could not unite with the Know Nothings, 
even in that case, because their movement is out 
of season and out of place. The question of the 
day is not about natives and foreigners, nor 
about Protestants and Roman Catholics, but 
about freemen and slaves. The practical and 
immediately urgent question is. Shall Kansas 
be admitted into the Union as a free State, or 
shall she be made a slave State, and so admit- 
ted? What have the franchises of alien immi- 
grants and Roman Catholics to do with that ? 
If the American people declare for Freedom, 
Kansas will be free. If the American people 
declare for Slavery, Kansas will be a slave State. 
If the American people divide, and one portion, 
being a minority, declare for Freedom, while 
another portion, being also a minority, declare 
against foreigners and Catholics, and a third, 
larger than either, declare for Slavery, nothing- 
is obtained against foreigners and Catholics, and 
nothing against Slavery, and Kansas becomes a 
slave State. Thus it is apparent that the issue 
raised by the Know Nothings, whatever is its 
merit, is an immaterial, irrelevant, and false is- 
sue. A false issue always tends to divert and 
mislead the people from the true one, and, of 
course, to prejudice the judgment to be render- 
ed upon it. I do not accuse the Know Nothings 
of designing so to mislead, because, first, I know 
nothing of the motives of others ; and, secondly, 
because the question is not upon motives, but 
upon effects. What have been the effects thus 
far? The Know Nothing members of Congress 
divided between the advocates of Freedom in 
the Territories and its opponents. Thf ir votes, 
combined with either, would have given it a 
complete triumph. Those votes reserved, and 
cast as some peculiar interest dictated, have left 
the question of Freedom in Kansas to the ordeal 
of the sword. 

What is the effect in the present canvass, 
on which depends the question of the admission 
of Kansas and of Utah, as slave States, in the 
next Congress? Distraction of the public mind. 
Such effects are inevitable. Whoever seeks to 
interpose an unreal or false issue, must necessa- 
rily, in order to gain even a hearing, affect neu- 
trality on the real one. At the same time, no 
party can practice neutrality on a vital issue 
with fairness. It will necessarily sympathize 
with the weaker of the two contestants, and, in 
some degree, co-operate with it to overthrow the 
stronger, which is the common adversary of both. 
Of course, as the two great contestants possess 
unequal strength in different States, the neutral 
will favor one in some of the States, and favor 
the other in other States. By virtue of a law 
that is irresistible, it will, sooner or later, betray 
each party, when its own peculiar ends require 
that course. The experience of the V/hig and 
Democratic parties has proved how impossible 
it is to practice neutrality on the great question 
of Slavery. The former has broken into pieces. 



bled ranks, has taken that of the extension and 
fortification of Slavery. The Know Nothing mass 
can expect no better success. The eHbrt will cost 
its life. Crowded and jostled between the two 
combatants, it will and must dissolve, giving up 
portions of its host here to Freedom, and there to 
Slavery, but not until it is too late to secure the 
triumph of Freedom. Thus you see that the 
Know Nothing mass is not really a political par- 
ty. It is only an ephemeral and evanescent fac- 
tion, as useless and injurious as a third blade in 
the shears, or a third stone which an ignorant 
artisan might attempt to gear in between the 
upper and the nether millstone. 

I3y another sign you shall know it to be not a 
party, but a faction. From the days of the land- 
ing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, until now, every 
one of the great parties, which has been engaged 
in directing the life of the American people,, has 
recognised, from necessity, the fact that the po- 
litical system which exists and which must con- 
tinue to exist here is a Republican one, and is 
based on the principle of the rightful political 
equality of all the members of the State ; and has 
confessed that directness, publicity, and equality 
of voices, are necessary in the conduct of affairs. 
The Know Nothings reject these principles, and 
seek to exclude a large and considerable portion 
of the members of the State from all participation 
in the conduct of its afi'airs ; and to obtain con- 
trol and carry on the operations of the Govern- 
ment of all, by secret machinery, inconsistent 
with the Constitution of a Rejiublic, and appro- 
priate only to a conspiracy eitlier for or against 
despotism. It will, I think, be hereafter regard- 
ed as one of the caprices of politics, that a sys- 
tem of combination so puerile was ever attempt- 
ed in the United States. The absurdity of the 
attempt is rendered still more glaring, when it is 
considered that the grounds of persecution, as- 
sumed against the class to be excluded, are those 
of nativity and religious belief — grounds direct- 
ly in conflict witli that elementary truth an- 
nounced by the Declaration of Independence, 
that all men are created equal, and are by na- 
ture endowed with certain inalienable rights^, to 
secure which Governments are instituted among 
men ; and with that other fundamental article of 
the Constitution, which declares that no system 
of religion shall ever be established. 

Who, then, will choose to enroll himself under 
the banner of an ephemeral, evanescent, and in- 
jurious faction, like this, to be compromised in 
its frauds for a day or a year, or two years, and 
then to be left by it to the pity and scorn of the 
nation whose confidence it haS sought to abuse? 
Certainly no one who values at its just worth 
the great interests of Freedom and Humanity, 
which are staked on the present contest, nor 
even any one who values at its just worth his 
own influence, or even his own vote, or his own 
character as a citizen. 

Our choice between parties, fellow-citizens, is 
thus confined to the Democratic and Republican 
parties. On what principle could we attach our- 
selves to the Democratic party ? Let us look the 



and perished in the effort. The latter has been I actual state of things full in the face. Seven 



years ago, when I entered Congress as a Senator 
Irom this State, there was not one acre of yoil 
■within the national domain from which Slavery 
was not excluded by law. It was excluded from 
Minnesota by the Ordinance of 1787, which was 
then of fully acknowledged obligation and effect. 
It was e.\cluded from Kansas and Nebraska by 
the Missouri Compromise restriction, which also 
was then in full effect. It was equally excluded 
from California, including New Mexico and Utah, 
by Mexican laws, which had never been impair- 
ed, and were of confessed obligation. It was 
excluded from Oregon by the organic law of 
that Territory. Now, there is not an acre of 
the public domain which Congress has not 
opened to the entrance of Slavery. It has ex- 
pressly abrogated the Missouri Compromise, on 
the ground that it was void, for want of power 
in Congress under the Constitution to exclude 
Slavery, and also on the ground that the Com- 
promise of 1 850 had already settled its invalidity. 
This legislation, if acquiesced in by the people, 
will henceforth be irresistibly claimed as abro- 
gating alike the Ordinance of 1787, the Missouri 
('ompromise restriction, and the Mexican laws. 
Thus, the whole of the Territories have been al- 
ready lost to Freedom by the legislation of the 
last seven years ; and the controversy before us 
is one not to save, but to reclaim. During the 
first six years of the period I have named, there 
were only two parties — the Democratic and 
Whig parties — in Congress and in the country. 
During the last year, there were three — the Dem- 
ocratic, Know Nothing, and Republican parties. 
Every one will at once acquit the Republican 
party, and those who now constitute it, of all 
agency in the betrayal and surrender of Freedom, 
which have thus been made. The responsibility 
for thera, therefore, belongs to the Democratic 
party and to the Whig party. Now, you may 
divide this responsibility between the Democratic 
and Whig parties, just as you like. The Whig 
party has perished under its weight, but a still 
greater responsibility lies upon the Democratic 
j)arty. It was the Democratic party that refused 
to admit California, without condition or com- 
])roniise, in 1850 ; that forced on the Whig party 
the Compromise of that year, and adopted it as 
its own permanent policj', and elected Franklin 
I'ierce the present President of the United States. 
It was the Democratic party that invented the 
new, plausible, deceptive, and ruinous policy of 
abnegation of Federal authority over Slavery in 
the Territories, and the substitution of the theory 
of Popular Sovereignty ; and it was the Democrat- 
ic party that, with the co-operation of a portion 
of the know Nothings, rejected the appeal of op- 
pressed and subjugated Kansas for relief and res- 
toration to Freedom by admission into the Union 
fts a free State. The Democratic party did in- 
deed, in some of its Conventions in Northern 
States, for a time hesitate to commit itself to the 
policy of Slavery Propagandism, by a breach of 
public taith, and by fraud and force, but it has 
finally renounced all opposition, and it now stands 
boldly forth, avowing its entire approval of that 
policy, and a determination to carry it through 
to ita end, whatever that end may be. 



Nor will any candid person claim that anything 
better is to be hoped fiom the Democratic party 
in the future. It is a party essentially built 
on the interests of the slaveholding class. De- 
prived of that support, it would instantly cease 
to exist. The principle of this class is, that prop- 
erty in man is sanctioned by the Constitution of 
the United States, and is inviolate. All that has 
been won by this class from Freedom has been 
won on that principle. The decisions of Judge 
Kane and other Federal Judges, and the odious 
and tyrannical laws of the usurpers in Kansas, 
are legitimate fruits of that principle. To that 
principle the Democratic party must adhere or 
perish, and it accepts it as the least fearful of two 
alternatives. But the principle, when established 
in the Territories, will then be with equal plau- 
sibility extended to the States, and thenceforth 
we shall have to contend for the right of the free 
States to exclude Slavery within their own bor- 
ders. 

If these arguments be sound, we are shut up 
to the necessity of giving our support to the Re- 
publican party, as the only means of maintaining 
the cause of Freedom and Humanity. Why, then, 
shall we stand aloof from it, in this election, or 
for a day or an hour? I will review the argu- 
ments urged from all quarters, and you shall see, 
in the first place, that every one of them is friv- 
olous and puerile ; and, secondly, that it involves 
nothing less than a surrender of the entire ques- 
tion in issue, and acquiesces in the unrestricted 
domination of Slavery. 

First. We are conjured, by those who, in Bos- 
ton, New York, and elsewhere, call themselves 
Straight-out Whigs, to wait for a re-organiza- 
tion of the National Whig party, to rescue the 
cause of Freedom. But is it written, in any book 
of political revelation, that a resurrection awaits 
parties which have fulfilled the course of na- 
ture? 

Secondly. The Whig party perished through 
a lack of virtue to maintain the cause of Free- 
dom. Amongst all of those who are waiting and 
praying for its resurrection, there is not one that 
to-day yields his support to that cause. What, 
then, but new betrayals can be expected, if it is 
destined to a resurrection ? 

We are told, on all sides, that the Republican 
party is new and partially organized, and merely 
experimental. It is indeed new, and • as yet 
imperfectly organized. But so once was the an- 
cient Whig party, that gave to the country its In- 
dependence. So once was the Federal party, that 
gave to the country its Constitution. So once 
was the ancient Republican party, that gave to 
the country a complete emancipation of the 
masses from the combination of classes. So once 
was the Whig and the Democratic party. It is 
the destiny of associations of men to have a be- 
ginning and an end. If an association is born 
of an enduring political necessity, it will con- 
tinue and wax in vigor and power until it sup- 
plants other and superfluous, though more aged 
combinations. That such is to be the case with 
the Republican party, is seen in the fact that all 
existing combinations are uniting against it, on 
the ground that such a union is necessary to 



8 



prevent its immediate and overwhelminfr ascen- 
dency. This union is an effective answer to tlie 
common argument, tliat the Republican party is 
an eplieraeral and evanescent one. 

Thirdly. We are favored with criticisms, by the 
Democrats and Know Nothings, on the course of 
the Republican members of the Housq of Repre- 
sentatives, in voting for Mr. Dunn's bill, to restore 
the Missouri Compromise, and against Mr. 
Toombs's bill, for pacifying Kansas ; which votes, 
it is said, prove the Republicans insincere in their 
devotion to Freedom. These are of the same class 
of arguments with those which are urged by infi- 
dels against the Christian Church, on the ground 
of the short-comings of its members. 

Suppose we abandon the Republican party for 
its short-comings, will Freedom then have any 
party left ; and if so, what party, and where shall 
we find it? Certainly no other party but the 
Democratic Party, of which Franklin Pierce and 
Stephen A. Douglas are the Apostles. But that is 
the party of Slavery. 

Fourthly. "We are warned that Mr. Fremont 
is an improper man to represent the Republican 
Party; that his accounts with the Government 
are wrong; that he is a Roman Catholic ; and that 
otherwise he was improperly chosen as a candi- 
date. Now, these accusations are newly trumped 
up, and have been already a thousand times dis- 
proved. Nevertheless, neither Democrats, nor 
Know Nothings, nor Straight-out Whigs, have be- 
come any the more Republicans on that account, 
nor would they, were Mr. Fremont proved to be an 
angel descended from above, to rescue the cause 



of Freedom. Suppose, on the other hand, that we 
should give up Fremont upon these cavils, what 
would follow but the ascendency of the American 
party, which substitutes a false issue for the true 
one, and so betrays the cause of Freedom ; or 
that of the Democratic party, which is the party 
of Slavery ? 

Fellow-citizens : I have discussed parties with- 
out asperity and with no partiality — for I know 
that masses and individuals are alike honest, 
well meaning, and patriotic. I have no animos- 
ities and no griefs. While I have tried to pursue 
always one steady course which my conscience 
has approved, friends have often been alienated, 
and adversaries have become friends. The char- 
ity of judgment to which I feel that I am enti- 
tled — that is the charity I extend to others. 

I do not predict the times and seasons when 
one or other of the contending political elements 
shall prevail. I know this — that this State, this 
nation, and this earth, are to be the abode and 
happy home of free men. Everywhere the hills 
and valleys are to be fields of free labor, free 
thought, and free suifrages. That consumma- 
tion will come when society shall be prepared 
for it. My labors are devoted to that preparation. 
I leave others to cling to obsolete traditions, and 
perish with them, if they must ; but, in politics 
as in religion, I desire to be with that portion of 
my fellow-men who hold fast to pure truth and 
equal justice with hope and confidence, enduring 
through all trials in their ultimate and eternal 
triumph. 



W46 



IT 









/I, o 



^* *jj^ "^ •^i^r* 41 

c 



'o ♦ * • 



A^ 










^ 



4 o^ 




..* ^ "*" „f° >> 







V. 






v-^^ 



.3^, 






Ao^ 



^o. 






■^ 



<^, 









._^'^- 



>j^. 



^-iV^^ 






-i; 



,•!>" 






%._ 



:*#%•. %.*" :" 



•1 












0-^ 



^o 









^^ 


6" 




A 


^^ 


"^o 



. -r , 






I 'o , , 



A 



^ 



<". 






3^ <^*. 



'^ 



"^ 



^^. 



>' 



A 



'^ 



\>'-^l^ 
v "^^ 






-^' 




